I was on your side before the lockout. Things have changed. With the new landscape I highly doubt now we'll be getting the kind of return for Lu that you're hoping for and imo best case is a salary dump with a role player or two, and/or lame prospect or pick coming back. With so much riding on this shortened season I'd rather have the security over the crappy return and we can dump him off next year via whatever avenue is available.

I would at least do what Tanti09 suggested and wait for the deadline in April to see how our goaltending plays out first. Once he's gone it's Schneids or bust...again, any other full season year I'm fine with that.

I think MG will wait until the right deal comes along.In the meantime there are a few stop gap measures to get us by until Kesler is ready and to fill the 8th D spot. For the right price how about giving Brendan Morrison a look. Sure he has slowed but he still has enough sense to hold down the 2 C position. Or there is Arnott, big and strong in front of the net, not the player he once was but in a race for the playoffs he can still add something at the 2 C. On the D there are two guys with the ability to hold down number 8 and they are Jim Vandermeer or Colin White. If MG can sign any of these guys for under a mil we would have no cap problems and they could carry us through until next year.

If we assume 5 per cent annual revenue growth after a 2013-14 season where hockey-related revenue is flat at $3.3-billion, then the salary cap would be approaching $80-million by the time the league can opt out of the deal.

These calculations assume the salary floor remains $16-million below the cap and the 5 per cent cap escalator is still available, as per early indications that these aspects would be the same as the previous CBA.

If we assume 5 per cent annual revenue growth after a 2013-14 season where hockey-related revenue is flat at $3.3-billion, then the salary cap would be approaching $80-million by the time the league can opt out of the deal.

BurningBeard wrote:Am I the only one who thinks $4M in cap space 6 years from now will be peanuts? Or should I say peanut crumbs?

Going by recent revenue growth levels I figure the cap would be around $80mil.

(anyone wanna do the math on this one?)

But I figure growth levels will be higher going forward (not this season, and perhaps not the next, but twill).

So yeah I figure the cap is nearing $100mil by then.

$3.5mil would be a bit of a pain, but manageable.

BurningBeard wrote:Strangelove can do the math to figure out how many metric tonnes. I think it's around 2000.

How long of a caravan of dump trucks would be needed to haul all that?

And who is going to crop Canuck-One's posts?

I have Hydrocephalus so I'm not sure how good my math is, but I believe you're looking at a caravan of dump trucks approximately 17 miles long. It also equates to approximately one David Booth cap hit.

First, if Luongo wants to go to Florida keep in mind he can trigger his out clause in another year or two and demand a trade. A demand that MG is contractually bound to honour. Trading Cory is a risky move. Luongo's personal life is going to be key to his decisions. He has already dealt with the emotional probability of leaving Vancouver so I doubt a decision to demand a trade is going to be hard for him.

10 years from now, maybe 8, we will have to deal with a new CBA. No one knows what it will look like. It may deal with some of these cap-recapture issues or may even allow more amnesty buy outs. If we have the risk of having to take on Luongo's cap or some portion of it in a trade then I think it will allow us to get a better return. After all most people say he is untradeable because of his contract so if you fix this then what obstacles are left.

No reason why we can't trade for his rights then send him to the AHL. Another point, if we trade for his rights back then the cap-recapture clause should not apply because we were the team that signed him no? All this is too much speculation anyway. If there is a penalty then MG will deal with that and factor it into any trade.

First, if Luongo wants to go to Florida keep in mind he can trigger his out clause in another year or two and demand a trade. A demand that MG is contractually bound to honour. Trading Cory is a risky move. Luongo's personal life is going to be key to his decisions. He has already dealt with the emotional probability of leaving Vancouver so I doubt a decision to demand a trade is going to be hard for him.

10 years from now, maybe 8, we will have to deal with a new CBA. No one knows what it will look like. It may deal with some of these cap-recapture issues or may even allow more amnesty buy outs. If we have the risk of having to take on Luongo's cap or some portion of it in a trade then I think it will allow us to get a better return. After all most people say he is untradeable because of his contract so if you fix this then what obstacles are left.

No reason why we can't trade for his rights then send him to the AHL. Another point, if we trade for his rights back then the cap-recapture clause should not apply because we were the team that signed him no? All this is too much speculation anyway. If there is a penalty then MG will deal with that and factor it into any trade.

As far as I would be concerned its all about return, the lockout seems to have set up a great situation for Gillis. He can keep both goalies happy as a one time deal considering its a short sprint to the Stanley Cup. "Hey here is number one goalie money to split the duties and walk away with a Stanley cup ring. Next season is next season but for now a big strength of this team is goaltending. So unless the return includes a second line centre and a depth defence man and a prospect or pick...see ya at the trade deadline....

Speaking of Toronto...how many ex leafs are still with the flames in the I had phanuef trade anyway?

The simplest way to explain it is this: Let's assume the Canucks and Maple Leafs make the deal. Vancouver would be responsible for the "cap benefit" that it received in the first two years. Toronto would be responsible for any remaining "cap benefit" it gets as a result of contract structure if he walks away early.

Here's the math. Luongo salary:

2010-11: $10 million US

2011-12: $6,716,000

That's a total of $16,716,000.

Luongo's cap hit is $5,333,333. You multiply it by how many years he spent with the Canucks, so, in this case, that figure is doubled. That's $10,666,666.

What was the cap benefit to Vancouver? You take the actual salaries paid ($16,716,000) and subtract the total amount of cap space the Canucks used ($10,666,666). The answer is $6,049,334.

Here are his actual cash numbers for those years:

2012-13 through 2017-18: $6,714,000

2018-19: $3,382,000

He would then walk away from three years at a combined $3,618,000. And, it's time for the penalties.

Vancouver's "frozen" $6,049,334 thaws. It is divided by the number of "unused" years in Luongo's contract -- three. The figure is $2,016,445. The Canucks will get a "cap penalty" at that amount for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons.

heard people were wondering if it made more sense for Vancouver to buy out Luongo. These figures make it seem non-sensical. First of all, with the opt-out clauses attached to the length of the new CBA, there's no guarantee the rules will be the same by the time the penalties are scheduled to take effect.

Second, there may just be a loophole. From what I understand, Long-Term Injury Reserve still exists. (For example, it allows Chris Pronger to come off the Philadelphia cap while he recovers from concussions.)

God forbid Luongo (or anyone else) goes through that. But he will be 40 in the summer of 2019. Who knows what happens to a goalie's body by then? Maybe he's had enough and is battling some nagging groin or hip or knee problem. He goes on LTIR, still gets paid and neither Toronto nor Vancouver gets any kind of penalty.

So it seems the cap penalty will not be all that onerus, especially if the cap is in excess of $80M by the time that happens.

Or as it was suggested, maybe he just rides the LTIR pine for a couple years.

All in all, this CBA isn't necessarily ideal for the Canucks, but it's not all that bad either. The drop in the cap isn't enough to really hamstring this team, and the two compliance buy outs can be very handy if Ballard and/or anyone else becomes an immovable albatross.